Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
When even Fox News says that you are a wingnut, that may be Nature's way of telling you that you are a wingnut.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbada...
Context, for anyone not aware of the story: Kim Davis, a municipal clerk in Kentucky whose job it is to issue marriage licences refuses to do so when the people wishing to marry are a same sex couple, thereby breaching her obligations as a public employee. A Federal Judge ordered her to perform her duty. She refused. He jailed her for contempt of Court. GOP candidate Huckabee has used the issue to boost his flagging campaign, saying that citizens only have to obey the laws that they like. All the usual gay haters and religious loons have come out of the woodwork to support the "martyr" Davis. BTW, her own marital history makes Henry VIII's look simple, but that is OK, because marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and let those (M/F) trailer trash whom God has joined in matrimony never be put asunder (until they get knocked up by the next guy at a 'gator wrasslin' monster truck festival), Amen.
This issue was dealt with in the UK a few years ago (the Registrar was employed by Islington Council and declined to deal with civil partnerships. He lost his case all the way to the ECtHR in Strasbourg). The US Supreme Court ruled several years ago that personal beliefs cannot trump compliance with public duty and the general law. Properly understood, the right to freedom of religion is not even engaged here, as no one is stopping the hate filled bigot from practising her hateful beliefs. She can't set them up above the law and the rights of others under the law, that's all.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbada...
Context, for anyone not aware of the story: Kim Davis, a municipal clerk in Kentucky whose job it is to issue marriage licences refuses to do so when the people wishing to marry are a same sex couple, thereby breaching her obligations as a public employee. A Federal Judge ordered her to perform her duty. She refused. He jailed her for contempt of Court. GOP candidate Huckabee has used the issue to boost his flagging campaign, saying that citizens only have to obey the laws that they like. All the usual gay haters and religious loons have come out of the woodwork to support the "martyr" Davis. BTW, her own marital history makes Henry VIII's look simple, but that is OK, because marriage is a sacred union ordained by God, and let those (M/F) trailer trash whom God has joined in matrimony never be put asunder (until they get knocked up by the next guy at a 'gator wrasslin' monster truck festival), Amen.
This issue was dealt with in the UK a few years ago (the Registrar was employed by Islington Council and declined to deal with civil partnerships. He lost his case all the way to the ECtHR in Strasbourg). The US Supreme Court ruled several years ago that personal beliefs cannot trump compliance with public duty and the general law. Properly understood, the right to freedom of religion is not even engaged here, as no one is stopping the hate filled bigot from practising her hateful beliefs. She can't set them up above the law and the rights of others under the law, that's all.
From what I saw on Fox News today they have reverted to type.
One guest who supports Kim Davis, one who doesn't, and a host favouring the former over the latter.
It just backs up the statistic that Fox News viewers are more ignorant of the facts of current affairs than those who profess to consume no news media at all.
One guest who supports Kim Davis, one who doesn't, and a host favouring the former over the latter.
It just backs up the statistic that Fox News viewers are more ignorant of the facts of current affairs than those who profess to consume no news media at all.
She's an elected official and therefore can't be sacked, only way to get rid is impeachment and the state legislature is not in session and isn't about to convene a special session.
Of course if she turns up on Monday and stirs up a fuss again she will likely land her ass back in jail
Of course if she turns up on Monday and stirs up a fuss again she will likely land her ass back in jail
Edited by ViperDave on Saturday 12th September 23:31
Davis is not merely seeking tolerance for her beliefs. She is seeking to set her beliefs above the rights of others and the general law. I think that we should tolerate Davis' beliefs (although I think that they are appalling) and I would defend her right to hold and express those beliefs, but that tolerance does not require that she be permitted to disregard her public duty or contravene the rules established by a democratic society.
DoubleByte said:
Are you not a bigot for not tolerating her?
What? How does that work then - I'm a bigot because I think she should be doing her job? I don't care what her politics or religious beliefs are, unless they affect others. Even then I don't care if every weekend she smothers herself in marmalade and worships a tea-cosy, if she can't do her job because of it then she shouldn't be in that position.Breadvan72 said:
Davis is not merely seeking tolerance for her beliefs. She is seeking to set her beliefs above the rights of others and the general law. I think that we should tolerate Davis' beliefs (although I think that they are appalling) and I would defend her right to hold and express those beliefs, but that tolerance does not require that she be permitted to disregard her public duty or contravene the rules established by a democratic society.
Precisely exactly and unerringly spot on.Chlamydia said:
DoubleByte said:
Are you not a bigot for not tolerating her?
What? How does that work then - I'm a bigot because I think she should be doing her job? I don't care what her politics or religious beliefs are, unless they affect others. Even then I don't care if every weekend she smothers herself in marmalade and worships a tea-cosy, if she can't do her job because of it then she shouldn't be in that position.They have now changed the meaning of marriage to so that to do her job according to the rules would be to go against her religious beliefs. Ergo personally i would say she is in the right here.
You then have the case of the stewardess who already a stewardess and aware that as part of her job she would be required to serve alcohol on board aircraft subsequently converted to Islam and refused to do her job fully due to her religious beliefs.
Apparently she cannot serve alcohol and as such she was dismissed and is now suing for unfair dismissal for religious discrimination. She deserved to be fired pure and simple.
jimmybobby said:
Actually if you think about it she is in the right. When she was elected marriage was a union between man and woman and as such was accepted as part of her religious beliefs.
They have now changed the meaning of marriage to so that to do her job according to the rules would be to go against her religious beliefs. Ergo personally i would say she is in the right here.
You then have the case of the stewardess who already a stewardess and aware that as part of her job she would be required to serve alcohol on board aircraft subsequently converted to Islam and refused to do her job fully due to her religious beliefs.
Apparently she cannot serve alcohol and as such she was dismissed and is now suing for unfair dismissal for religious discrimination. She deserved to be fired pure and simple.
But the law as it pertains to her performing her job hasn't changed. By swearing an oath to uphold the constitution she agreed that her personal religious beliefs had no place in the execution of her duties, its the first amendment. The same part of the constitution that allows her to hold such beliefs in her personal life without interference from the state. They have now changed the meaning of marriage to so that to do her job according to the rules would be to go against her religious beliefs. Ergo personally i would say she is in the right here.
You then have the case of the stewardess who already a stewardess and aware that as part of her job she would be required to serve alcohol on board aircraft subsequently converted to Islam and refused to do her job fully due to her religious beliefs.
Apparently she cannot serve alcohol and as such she was dismissed and is now suing for unfair dismissal for religious discrimination. She deserved to be fired pure and simple.
The fact that prior to the change in marriage law the criteria for her placing her stamp on the marriage license happened to agree with her personal beliefs and now it doesn't is irrelevant as her personal beliefs never had (or should have had) any consideration in placing the stamp, her job is simply to check the application meets the criteria to be legal, not to pass judgement on the applications morality.
As for the example of a stewardess that changes their religious followings, its both sides of the same coin, and is no different, the job is to serve drinks (oh and something about safety), not impose religious standards, in both cases the change from personal religious compatibility to incompatibility is irrelevant because it had no actual relevance in the first place, just a happy coincidence.
It is however arguable that Kim Davis's transgressions are of far greater significance as a) swearing an oath is more significant then signing your name, and b) the Constitution of the USA is greatly more significant than an employment contract.
Edited by ViperDave on Monday 14th September 09:24
Einion Yrth said:
Jailed for contempt of court? Couldn't they have just sacked her?
I don't get it either. A whole lot less fuss, she doesn't have to do the job she doesn't want to do, everyone can get their marriage license from her replacement. The court can spend their time on something more productive than giving airtime to loons.Less money for the lawyers I guess, so win win.
0000 said:
Einion Yrth said:
Jailed for contempt of court? Couldn't they have just sacked her?
I don't get it either. A whole lot less fuss, she doesn't have to do the job she doesn't want to do, everyone can get their marriage license from her replacement. The court can spend their time on something more productive than giving airtime to loons.Less money for the lawyers I guess, so win win.
ViperDave said:
jimmybobby said:
Actually if you think about it she is in the right. When she was elected marriage was a union between man and woman and as such was accepted as part of her religious beliefs.
They have now changed the meaning of marriage to so that to do her job according to the rules would be to go against her religious beliefs. Ergo personally i would say she is in the right here.
You then have the case of the stewardess who already a stewardess and aware that as part of her job she would be required to serve alcohol on board aircraft subsequently converted to Islam and refused to do her job fully due to her religious beliefs.
Apparently she cannot serve alcohol and as such she was dismissed and is now suing for unfair dismissal for religious discrimination. She deserved to be fired pure and simple.
But the law as it pertains to her performing her job hasn't changed. By swearing an oath to uphold the constitution she agreed that her personal religious beliefs had no place in the execution of her duties, its the first amendment. The same part of the constitution that allows her to hold such beliefs in her personal life without interference from the state. They have now changed the meaning of marriage to so that to do her job according to the rules would be to go against her religious beliefs. Ergo personally i would say she is in the right here.
You then have the case of the stewardess who already a stewardess and aware that as part of her job she would be required to serve alcohol on board aircraft subsequently converted to Islam and refused to do her job fully due to her religious beliefs.
Apparently she cannot serve alcohol and as such she was dismissed and is now suing for unfair dismissal for religious discrimination. She deserved to be fired pure and simple.
The fact that prior to the change in marriage law the criteria for her placing her stamp on the marriage license happened to agree with her personal beliefs and now it doesn't is irrelevant as her personal beliefs never had (or should have had) any consideration in placing the stamp, her job is simply to check the application meets the criteria to be legal, not to pass judgement on the applications morality.
As for the example of a stewardess that changes their religious followings, its both sides of the same coin, and is no different, the job is to serve drinks (oh and something about safety), not impose religious standards, in both cases the change from personal religious compatibility to incompatibility is irrelevant because it had no actual relevance in the first place, just a happy coincidence.
It is however arguable that Kim Davis's transgressions are of far greater significance as a) swearing an oath is more significant then signing your name, and b) the Constitution of the USA is greatly more significant than an employment contract.
Edited by ViperDave on Monday 14th September 09:24
Whatever your views on gay marriage its not hard to agree this is a matter for the legislative authorities not for the Supreme court to impose on the people on a 5-4 majority. If you read the decenting views they predicted this would happen.
ViperDave said:
But the law as it pertains to her performing her job hasn't changed. By swearing an oath to uphold the constitution she agreed that her personal religious beliefs had no place in the execution of her duties, its the first amendment. The same part of the constitution that allows her to hold such beliefs in her personal life without interference from the state.
The fact that prior to the change in marriage law the criteria for her placing her stamp on the marriage license happened to agree with her personal beliefs and now it doesn't is irrelevant as her personal beliefs never had (or should have had) any consideration in placing the stamp, her job is simply to check the application meets the criteria to be legal, not to pass judgement on the applications morality.
As for the example of a stewardess that changes their religious followings, its both sides of the same coin, and is no different, the job is to serve drinks (oh and something about safety), not impose religious standards, in both cases the change from personal religious compatibility to incompatibility is irrelevant because it had no actual relevance in the first place, just a happy coincidence.
It is however arguable that Kim Davis's transgressions are of far greater significance as a) swearing an oath is more significant then signing your name, and b) the Constitution of the USA is greatly more significant than an employment contract.
Viper in the marriage case when she took on the job it did not conflict with her religious beliefs. They then changes a very significant rule which meant it does. In the case of the stewardess she was already in the job and knew the rules and requirements one of which was to serve alcohol. She then by her own choice decided to follow Islamic faith which would bring in her in direct contravention of a major aspect of her job.The fact that prior to the change in marriage law the criteria for her placing her stamp on the marriage license happened to agree with her personal beliefs and now it doesn't is irrelevant as her personal beliefs never had (or should have had) any consideration in placing the stamp, her job is simply to check the application meets the criteria to be legal, not to pass judgement on the applications morality.
As for the example of a stewardess that changes their religious followings, its both sides of the same coin, and is no different, the job is to serve drinks (oh and something about safety), not impose religious standards, in both cases the change from personal religious compatibility to incompatibility is irrelevant because it had no actual relevance in the first place, just a happy coincidence.
It is however arguable that Kim Davis's transgressions are of far greater significance as a) swearing an oath is more significant then signing your name, and b) the Constitution of the USA is greatly more significant than an employment contract.
Edited by ViperDave on Monday 14th September 09:24
She had a choice. Continue working as a stewardess and disregard the alcohol aspect of her belief or quit her job and do something that would not conflict with her religious beliefs.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff